Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Facts

Hoffman wanted to operate a Red Owl grocery store. Lukowitz, acting for Red Owl, made a series of promises and assurances on which Hoffman relied to his detriment. Red Owl first promised that for $18,000 it would establish Hoffman in a store. After Hoffman sold his grocery store and paid $1,000 on a lot in Chilton, the figure was changed to $24,100. In November, 1961, Hoffman was assured that adding $2,000 would put the deal through. He had sold his grocery-store fixtures and inventory in June, 1961, on the promise that he would be in his new store by fall. In November the Hoffmans sold their bakery building on defendants' urging and on the assurance that this was the last step needed. The bakery building was sold at a loss of $2,000, and title stood in joint tenancy, so part of the loss fell on Mrs. Hoffman. Hoffman also paid $125 for a month's rent in Chilton and $140 to move to Neenah, where he worked nights in a bakery while holding himself available for a Red Owl store. The deal collapsed in January, 1962, without agreement on the store building's size, cost, design, or layout, or on lease terms.

Issues

1. Should Wisconsin recognize a cause of action grounded on promissory estoppel as stated in sec. 90 of the Restatement of Contracts?
2. Do the facts make out promissory estoppel even though the parties never agreed on the essential terms of the proposed transaction?
3. Are the jury's findings on the items of damages sustained by the evidence?

Holding

Wisconsin adopts the promissory-estoppel doctrine of sec. 90. The Hoffmans' reliance on Red Owl's promises made out the cause of action, and injustice required relief, although the award for the grocery-store sale was excessive and a new trial on that item was proper.